that's a good question. My past crabs only lived between 3-6 yrs. ave 3-4yrs. how long have you guys had your crabs? it would be helpful info. They say they can live up to 30yrs but how do you tell age when you buy them?

Click to expand...

Apparently some of these species are estimated to have potential lifespans much greater than 30 years.

Generally speaking size is a used to estimate age. There are faults with this though as caloric, protein availability and quality etc. will affect growth rates (just like any other animal) so a crab from location A may weigh 35 grams at age 10, but from location B it might take 15 years to hit that size. There has been some work with Birgus that show that animals on locations with lots of coconuts are larger, and this was felt to be due to the energy provided by the nuts.

How do i know that it wasn't their 'time to go' after 3-4yrs of owning them? maybe they were already 15-20yrs old when they were captured?

Click to expand...

That could be, and also, it should be remembered that just because some can live to be say 60, that doesn't mean that all or most will. However, if you start with fairly small animals, and are only getting 3-4 years out of them on average, I think it is safe to say that the lifespan of at least some of them has been shortened.

I know that Carol of Crabworks has personally owned her 2 crabs for 33 years as of this past September (they were tiny/small when she bought them). Marie at the CrabStreetJournal has had some of her crabs 11 years and counting. I personally buy small crabs because they are generally younger than if I were to buy jumbos. That is a consideration we need to take into account - if someone says their average time owning a certain crab was only a year, but the crab was a jumbo, it's like adopting a dog when it's 10 and expecting it to live just as long as if you were to adopt a puppy.

I think you are over-complicating things somewhat, Keith. You say that we can't confirm a cause of death without a toxicology report being generated on the crab...but consider these situations: Person A has a great tank setup but their jungle bedding contains cypress, which is a close relation to pine. Their crabs drop their shells and die one by one. We know by experience as a crabbing community that pine (and cypress - I've had 2 instances on the HCP and the Addiction forum where cypress bedding caused this same thing to happen) will cause crabs to drop their shells and die. Can we not say that their crab died due to the cypress bedding?

Or what about person B, who only feeds their crab pellets (which happen to contain EQ) but otherwise has a good setup - the proper type of salt water, and a quality sand/coconut fiber and dechlorinator to boot. Their crab dies unexpectedly - can we not analyze the situation and surmise that the cause of death is the ethoxyquin? It's like when someone is killed on the news, completely riddled with bulletholes, blood everywhere but no one will say he was killed with a gun - there are times when the gun may not have been cause of death but instead was a means of covering up the true nature of the crime, but I doubt our crabs are covering up their causes of death to try to torment us.

Saying that we can't blame EQ for a crab's death because we can't get toxicology results from that crab is basically saying that there's no reason to not feed crabs EQ - after all, we don't have any test results saying that EQ killed any crabs. Or like saying that we don't have any scientific proof that crabs need salt water so there's no reason to offer them salt water, while ignoring the fact that many of us have watched new crabs' reactions when finally offered a good salt water. Personally, I'm going to trust the anecdotal evidence from those who have been crabbing (in some cases) longer than I've been alive, or at least since before I started crabbing - I agree that we need research to prove what these successful crabbers already know, but it doesn't change the fact that they know the information already.

I think you are over-complicating things somewhat, Keith. You say that we can't confirm a cause of death without a toxicology report being generated on the crab

Click to expand...

I did not say that. Please re-read what I wrote.

...but consider these situations: Person A has a great tank setup but their jungle bedding contains cypress, which is a close relation to pine. Their crabs drop their shells and die one by one. We know by experience as a crabbing community that pine (and cypress - I've had 2 instances on the HCP and the Addiction forum where cypress bedding caused this same thing to happen) will cause crabs to drop their shells and die. Can we not say that their crab died due to the cypress bedding?

Click to expand...

I think this is a little different than some of the feeding scenarios that have been put forward in the internet boards. There is a ton of information about the toxicity of pine and other aromatic beddings in a wide variety of species, and some excellent science to back it up so the leap is not so far as suggesting that ethoxyquin causes molting abnormalities. I am not suggesting that it doesn't, but there is really no data. Plenty of people's crabs have molt problems without ever feeding something with ethoxyquin in it.

Or what about person B, who only feeds their crab pellets (which happen to contain EQ) but otherwise has a good setup - the proper type of salt water, and a quality sand/coconut fiber and dechlorinator to boot. Their crab dies unexpectedly - can we not analyze the situation and surmise that the cause of death is the ethoxyquin?

Click to expand...

No you cannot, at least not if you want to know you have the right diagnosis.. There was no analysis in that scenario. I can think of a myriad of other scenarios that could explain it. Without knowing why the crab died, how can you blame ethoxyquin. Now ethoxyquin is one substance that gets people with a certain viewpoint about food very excited, so is it real . . . or are people simply beating on a familiar horse. If I had a sudden die off of animals being fed a prepared diet and no other detectable issues I would start by doing two things. Have the food analyzed and have a representative sample of the animals evaluated. Many don't have the mechanisms at their fingertips to do this - but then they should be careful about the conclusions they draw.

It's like when someone is killed on the news, completely riddled with bulletholes, blood everywhere but no one will say he was killed with a gun - there are times when the gun may not have been cause of death but instead was a means of covering up the true nature of the crime, but I doubt our crabs are covering up their causes of death to try to torment us.

Click to expand...

This analogy simply does not fit.

Saying that we can't blame EQ for a crab's death because we can't get toxicology results from that crab is basically saying that there's no reason to not feed crabs EQ - after all, we don't have any test results saying that EQ killed any crabs.

Click to expand...

No it is not, not at all. I am saying that if you want to blame EQ for a death you need evidence of such. That does not translate into a blanket OK to feed anything, but it does mean that you are over interpreting the scenario. I am merely suggesting that one be accurate when we say things. I think it is accurate to say, "some crabs on commercial pellets have been reported to have molting difficulties, some have even died. Several people suggest that this is due to ethoxyguin in the food. No mechanism for this has been proposed or evaluated." But it is entirely another to say that EQ alone is the cause of death - unless you have proof. It would be a darn shame if something else was killing crabs but but it got missed because EQ is a popular whipping boy for the natural food movement.

Or like saying that we don't have any scientific proof that crabs need salt water so there's no reason to offer them salt water, while ignoring the fact that many of us have watched new crabs' reactions when finally offered a good salt water.

Click to expand...

This analogy is a bit off for several reasons.

There is solid scientific evidence that the crabs require salt water. That it is ignored by so many pet stores is criminal.

As an aside: I ahve a question question: If a dog were to lick up some greenish liquid on the driveway and appears to enjoy it to the point that he would drink it all, would you let him? Wouldn't that reaction tell you that it must be important to him? Hint: don't confuse an appetite with evidence that something is necessarily good. In the case of the crabs and the salt water it is, but not always.

The crabs certainly need salt water, anyone with a shred of understanding of their natural history would know that and this fact is not recognized simply because they like it, but based on sound physiological evidence. No one offers it simply because at some point in the history of "crabbing" someone happened to have some salt water sitting around and they noticed the crabs went for it People began offering it when some smart folks looked into their biology and said, heya - they need some salt water!

Personally, I'm going to trust the anecdotal evidence from those who have been crabbing (in some cases) longer than I've been alive, or at least since before I started crabbing - I agree that we need research to prove what these successful crabbers already know, but it doesn't change the fact that they know the information already.

Click to expand...

They don't KNOW it, they may suspect it, but they do not know it. Huge difference. Anecdotes are wonderful things, but trusting them because they are coming from someone who has owned crabs for an extended period of time is an example of a logical fallacy, the Appeal to Authority.

I know people who have owned a variety of species for years - but that doesn't mean they know much, or really know what they are doing. After all - people can, and do buy more crabs all the time. I suspect that many people who can say that they have had crabs for X years, are still rarely having one live past 4 years of age. This is not much of a success story for an animal that should live for decades.

Alex I cant help but notice in an earlier thread you said that you are already feeding octopus and squid as well as the silly pellets that we have all told you are going to kill your crabs...so if you are already feeding these things to your crabs why are you asking? Are you asking if they like it or if it is safe?
I would hope you would actually find out BEFORE you offered them to your crabs, and also these things should only be PART of your crabs diet, not every single meal, they need variety and nutrition, balanced meals, would you like to eat peanut butter and Jelly every meal EVERY day?
Veggies, fruits, nuts (unsalted) Chicken, pork, beef (all cooked)
Rice, shrimp Etc, you need a good mix of all items for healthy crabs.
Just like you eat a balanced meal every day ( usually a meat, a starch like rice or potatoes and a veggie) mix it up, give them a variety and they will eat better and live longer, also check all the safe food lists before feeding them anything you are unsure about BEFORE you feed it to them!

Well, here are my two cents worth on the subject of "science vs. practicality". While being respectful of your opinion kgbenson, I have a problem with some of your thinking.

If a dog were to lick up some greenish liquid on the driveway and appears to enjoy it to the point that he would drink it all, would you let him? Wouldn't that reaction tell you that it must be important to him? Hint: don't confuse an appetite with evidence that something is necessarily good. In the case of the crabs and the salt water it is, but not always.

Click to expand...

Common sense and "tried and true" practices still prevail. They don't have to be written up in the Scientific Journal to be a proved fact that something works.

Common sense also tells us that if our dog is ingesting a greenish liquid in the driveway, that either a "herd" of green caterpillars just got run over, or it is Antifreeze, which may be tasty at the time, but ultimately deadly.

We have a responsibility to take care of things to the best of our ability. Just because it isn't scientific fact, doesn't mean it can't be potentially harmful, or good for that matter. And THAT is why tried and proved advice is helpful, even essential to health and longevity.

It's a proved fact that the cigarette companies put in a chemical that "entices" one to keep on smoking. Common sense tells us that it may taste good, but it can dramatically change one's quality of life, even leading to a painful death.

I for one value the "common sense" information, that through the experience of others, has been "passed" along. Things that our crabbies like, (as with the adding of a certain chemical to commercial food to make it appealing, even desirous to a crab) are not always what is beneficial to them.

Bottom line is, it's up to the individual to choose what they consider to be the best care for their crabs. Hopefully they chose correctly.........and such is life.

Example: there is a vestibular condition in older dogs that was traditionally treated with corticisteroids and antibiotics. Thinking was, in a simple nutshell, that there was some inflammation of the nerves carrying information from the inner ear to the brain and that the steroids would reduce this, and the anibiotics were there in caase there was a bacteria componant that was unidentified. Well, low and behold they would improve after a few days of therapy and cage rest. Huzzah - common sense and "tried and true practice" prevailed. It was so obviously efficacious to treat it that it was a fair bit of time before someone questioned the thinking and looked a little bit deeper. Funny thing is, the vast majority improve in a few days regardless of treatment. History is replete with the "tried and true" being trounced by new data. It is also full of data supporting the "tried and true" - problem is, until the data comes along, it is hard to differentiate between the two.

They don't have to be written up in the Scientific Journal to be a proved fact that something works.

Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly. So? I didn't say that it was required, what I said was that it would be prudent not to treat all "facts" as equal, as they are not. People mention things around here, unreferenced, unsubstantiated, in such a way that it appears, to the new and inexperienced as a fact. And they make use of the information as such. The idea that chemically identical vitamin molecules are biologically different for instance. No data for that, in fact the data suggests otherwise, but it was presented as a fact.

Giving people bad information is never good - even if it initially appears to be harmless and possibly even safer for them in the short term.

Common sense also tells us that if our dog is ingesting a greenish liquid in the driveway, that either a "herd" of green caterpillars just got run over, or it is Antifreeze, which may be tasty at the time, but ultimately deadly.

Click to expand...

Yep - but it also goes to show that just because something has an appetite for certain things it does not make them good for it. That is the point I was making. I know, for a variety of reasons, that salt water is required for all coneobita - even those who rarely use it. I have said that before, on this and other forums. That a bunch of crabs ran to a bowl od sea water and drank is not why anyone came up with the idea that it is A) good for them, or B) required by them. The idea comes form simple observation of their natural history, perhaps with consideration of a little of the lab data out there on hemolymph and shell water concentrations. I think the simple observation is the most important here - simple observation of them in the wild, not drinking out of a dish in captivity as the post I was responding to was suggesting - intentionally or not.

We have a responsibility to take care of things to the best of our ability.

Click to expand...

I could not agree more. I this is why I find it frustrating when people purchase pets and are not prepared, financially or logistically for caring for them. IN the wild the animals take care of themselves and any chances they take are purely their responsibility. In captivity the owner has removed from them the ability to do this, and have therefore transferred the responsibility to themselves - regardless of the animals taxon, or their purchase price.

Just because it isn't scientific fact, doesn't mean it can't be potentially harmful, or good for that matter. And THAT is why tried and proved advice is helpful, even essential to health and longevity.

Click to expand...

I agree - but, and this is important, it is reasonable to expect folks to to make mention of how a conclusion has been wrought. People on these boards are perceived as authorities on crab care. Their mere utterenace can and is often taken as solid unimpeachable fact. However, if it is based on a few anecdotes, I think the person stating said "fact" aught to own up and give the recipients of the infomation an idea of just how much weight to assign to this opinion. All that needs to be said is Some folks have seen what they feelt to be effect X when crabs are fed substance Y. Or "this is annecdotal but . . . . "

But if you state something as a fact, it will often be taken that way - and not all "facts" are equal.

It's a proved fact that the cigarette companies put in a chemical that "entices" one to keep on smoking. Common sense tells us that it may taste good, but it can dramatically change one's quality of life, even leading to a painful death.

Click to expand...

Yep - I do not refute the logic above. At the same token, the thing that kicked anti-smoking campaigns in gear and that has allowed for the anti-smoking advances has not been common sense, but good old fashioned data. For a long time it was "common knowledge" that tobacco was harmless.

I for one value the "common sense" information, that through the experience of others, has been "passed" along.

Click to expand...

It can be wonderful stuff, but even here it is limited. Take the EQ thing. How many crabs had a molt issue attributed to EQ? How many people felt they saw it first hand? Not too many if the information I have scrounged is accurate. And yet - people state this as a fact, no qualifiers. Given the strength of the evidence I would say it is possible, and as there are ways to feed crabs without giving them EQ, I see little harm in following that advice, but there are a host of other reasons why those same symptoms could be seen, and no one even mentions that. What if those molt difficulties were from something else and because everyone is focused on EQ - they missed the real culprit?

If weight given to a conclusion or peice of supporting evidence is not appropriate for the actual data and observations that support it, it is hard to make appropriate use of that information. When people make decisions based on it, they are using biased information. In my mind, bias is not good.

Things that our crabbies like, (as with the adding of a certain chemical to commercial food to make it appealing, even desirous to a crab) are not always what is beneficial to them.

Click to expand...

That was the only point I was trying to make with the antifreeze analogy.

Bottom line is, it's up to the individual to choose what they consider to be the best care for their crabs. Hopefully they chose correctly.........and such is life.

Click to expand...

True - but the people who care to offer advice, should qualify their facts and opinions so that people can make informed choices, otherwise, they may not have the tools to choose wisely.

Folks that work in professions where advice is given frequently and where there can be repercussions from giving inaccurate or ill advised advice generally qualify their advice and give some background on how a particular conclusion has come to be made (unless it is a dead obvious fact with all sorts of data proving it ad nauseum), it allows them to A) protect themselves and more importantly B) allows the people they are working with to make fully informed decisions - something we should all strive for.

Now I do have a question: How many people here have personally had a molt difficulty they have attributed to EQ, and how many other possibilities did you consider before reaching this conclusion. How did you decide to give preference to the EQ etiology?

Keith - if you want to talk to one of the women who was among the first to realize that EQ was causing molt deformities, I suggest you talk to Marie (ladybug15057) at either the Hermit Crab Paradise forum or the Crab Street Journal forum (she runs that one, the CSJ adoption site, and the CrabbyWiki). She is among the first who related EQ to molting problems, as well as she's one of the reasons that the HCP forum discourages playsand - she and several other crabbers had a rash of both bad molts and molters who wouldn't eat their exo due to various impurities in the playsand coating their exos.